- Each cylinder has two injectors, one port and one direct
- Electrically variable titanium intake valves; hydraulically variable steel exhaust valves (lift stays same on valves)- Upshifts take 0.1 seconds
- "'The goal is not to make a BMW M3,' Yaguchi said, though many people will see it as such. 'The M3 is fun for a realy good driver, but if you're not a really good driver, int's not fun,' he said. 'This is a car everyone can enjoy; with this dcar you skill level doesn't matter.'" -- Great!
- "This one (suspension) is softer than the previous M3's...but, it is a tradeoff we could live with."
- "Lexus cleverly chose to reveal its IS F just before BMW revealed its M3 (sedan). Or was that pure coincidence? In either case, everyone's stories about the Lexus IS F will come out before other stories about the M3. This will allow people to view the IS F separatels as a sports sedan unot itself. In such a context it is an unbridled success. Against the M3, we'll have to wait and see."

Greg, thanks for this very useful information. Some very nice high tech details used in the car indeed. The part I don't buy at all is the easy to drive part. This is one thing all the reviewers have been ranting on and on about with the M3. Oh well back to the (or my...) conundrum, as I'll call it.

The most useful tidbit I noted for the "debate" at hand was the transmission performance. I already gave the IS-F the benefit of the doubt in previous simulations and have now performed a bracketing exercise. These two simulation results below show on the left: The IS-F with claimed weight and power specs but with the standard shift times from CarTest over ridden with a .1 s shift time (very impressive!). The results on the right are the same but I used some very optimistic (probably down right unreasonable values - but like I said - "braketing") mechnical tranny losses (5% as opposed to the default of 8%, and the manual value of 6%), torque converter losses are 1% (std. value is 3%) and lastly maximum transmission slip losses are set at 8% (default 15%). This is the max. extra loss during times the trans is calcuated to slip, not the loss when well hooked up.

What did I learn? Sure you get quite a bit better performance with a better tranny (obvious). In fact now 0-60 you just barely get to the worst magazine figure 4.74 vs. 4.8. For all of the other results I still can not touch the C&D results. I even continued to push harder using even "magically" low loss results for the transmission (that is the 2nd image below). I still could not touch the reported 0-100, 1/4 mi nor 0-150 results.

The last possibility is that the C&D car was a sleeper (a new and definite possiblity - this has been done before). I would LOVE to have a dyno result for that particular car vs. the reported dyno results in this thread. That would likely end this entire debate.

I also posted one page that covers most of the inputs other than weight, dimensions, gears, power, etc. specific to each car. Pretty impressive inputs and physics captured by the software eh? (Note: no worries on all the blank hp entries, I am just using the curves calculated by CarTest which looked reasonable enough).

It is not about me being right all of the time. What you can not seem to accept, as many others here have, is that something simply does not add up. You keep sticking to your guns that the car is so similar to an Audi and that it's performance results are so similar that all is rosy and consistent in the world. If you dig just a bit deeper you will see that this is not the case both on 0-60 (AWD - hint, hint) and 0-100 (smoking the E92 M3 with way more power to the ground and less weight). The civic example was chose particularly absurd just to make a point, it was not a literal case study, but it seems even the extreme nature of that thought experiment does not help you broaden your perspective - even by a tiny, tint bit. Thank for your insightful opinions on my logic and common sense. Have a look in the mirror my boy.

Last but not least when you say the M3, RS4 and IS-F "specs" are close you have to dive a lot deeper than hp! So on the surface you are correct but looking at what matters you are terribly and grossly wrong. You need peak torque, the enitire torque curve, the weight and last but not least one of the most important things you keep over looking is the importance of the transmission type and gear ratios (gears AND final drive). Did you happen to read my post about torque multiplication and showing how the M3 has about 25% more torque delivered to the ground than the IS-F in 1st gear (and similar but smaller advantages in other gears)? I don't, and no one who knows anything, gives a rats a$$ about the engine peak torque spec. or even rear wheel dyno torque results comparing the these two (or any two cars for that matter...). The torque delivered to the wheels divided by the weight is an absolutely essential factor. It is absolutely not about which car I like better or which has superior data sheet specs. - it is about consistency of all of the specs, testing, data and simulation. If the IS-F had the superior torque delivery and poor real world tests I would be just as confused and questioning everything as well!

Listen Swamp, what i meant by i don't doubt your results is that i believe what you got i just don't agree with them. Those are only estimations, they don't necessarily have to match real world results. Which to me is what matters the most and the only final conclusion. As i stated before, there could be errors which in that case it should be tested again and again. In the end, the real world results is what only counts, not a computer simulated test. And as far as the similarities between the ISF, M3 and RS4, i'm not just talking about HP figures. I'm talking about other specs such as their performance figures and weight.

As you can see, they are not that far apart, you almost can't get any closer than that. So for you to think that the IS-F is under rating their HP figures just because it's 0.2 secs quicker is idiotic. Remember, these performance results could easily change hand at any given time depending on the "real world" condition that they are being tested. I still think that the M3 should be quicker. I actually predicted 4.1 or 4.2. So again, why does it not add up and why in the hell should everything add up to your calculations? I think your being just a little too technical about this whole thing. But that's fine, to each his own. We are obviously not going to agree on this. You are pretty much convinced with your "similuted test results" and that's the end of it all. That's fine, and i will stick to what the real world test results will show me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swamp2

The last possibility is that the C&D car was a sleeper (a new and definite possiblity - this has been done before). I would LOVE to have a dyno result for that particular car vs. the reported dyno results in this thread. That would likely end this entire debate.

LOL!!! Oh my God! That's a good one, what's your next conspiracy theory, i know, they used NOS. You are sooooooo reaching. But if that makes you happy, so be it. Just so you know, the dyno results on this thread is by Automobilemag. Their results as far as 0-60 is 4.6. The difference is they don't launch their cars like C&D, i don't think any of the other magazines launch their cars like C&D. Car and Driver are known and have always been quicker and quickest than any other magazines when it comes to accelarations. They are the only ones that got 4.9 secs to 60 from the 335i coupe as far as i know.

Swamp is trying to explain the difference in results between what we would expect from the stated specs and what we see in the "real world" tests. If you can't predict performance from the specs then the specs are wrong (EDIT: or the model is), one way or another. Science is based on predicting what will happen and testing those predictions, you know. But please, post more of the "it's close enough, why do you doubt it" stuff.

You can predict performance in the real world, you know. It's the basis for car design. Models. So far the CarTest model has worked for other cars, why not the IS-F?

Swamp is trying to explain the difference in results between what we would expect from the stated specs and what we see in the "real world" tests. If you can't predict performance from the specs then the specs are wrong (EDIT: or the model is), one way or another. Science is based on predicting what will happen and testing those predictions, you know. But please, post more of the "it's close enough, why do you doubt it" stuff.

You can predict performance in the real world, you know. It's the basis for car design. Models. So far the CarTest model has worked for other cars, why not the IS-F?

Yeesh.

Exactly, it's only a prediction. So you're saying the prediction should be more valid than the actual results. Swamp is trying to say that his predictions don't add up to the results, therefore the results are invalid base on the specs and his calculations with the spec. And that's where i disagree. Predictions is only a base format of what to excpect but not necessarily what should be or must be expected. The bottom line is, it still comes down to the actual real world test and the results that you get from that test. The "it's close enough, why do you doubt it stuff" that's called consistency.

LOL!!! Oh my God! That's a good one, what's your next conspiracy theory, i know, they used NOS. You are sooooooo reaching. But if that makes you happy, so be it. Just so you know, the dyno results on this thread is by Automobilemag. Their results as far as 0-60 is 4.6. The difference is they don't launch their cars like C&D, i don't think any of the other magazines launch their cars like C&D. Car and Driver are known and have always been quicker and quickest than any other magazines when it comes to accelarations. They are the only ones that got 4.9 secs to 60 from the 335i coupe as far as i know.

Please tell me that you are kidding. It has happened in the past where a manufacturer(s) sent a beefed up version of their production car(s) to auto rag reviewers for testing. It isn't something that can necessarily be ruled out in totality.

As far as C&D's times (..and how they produce them), they have come into question in the past.

Exactly, it's only a prediction. So you're saying the prediction should be more valid than the actual results. Swamp is trying to say that his predictions don't add up to the results, therefore the results are invalid base on the specs and his calculations with the spec. The "it's close enough, why do you doubt it stuff" that's called consistency.

No. When a predicted outcome is wrong, either the model is wrong or the variables put into the model are wrong. At this point, we are debating the variables, given that the model has been accurate for other vehicles, and you are complaining that we are even trying to predict outcomes in the first place.

You continue to miss the point. We have *one* actual result that doesn't make sense given the specs of the car and yet you want us to trust the magic stuff inside the box and not open the hood? Please. Don't you ever ask "why" or did you go to school where that wasn't allowed?

No. When a predicted outcome is wrong, either the model is wrong or the variables put into the model are wrong. At this point, we are debating the variables, given that the model has been accurate for other vehicles, and you are complaining that we are even trying to predict outcomes in the first place.

You continue to miss the point. We have *one* actual result that doesn't make sense given the specs of the car and yet you want us to trust the magic stuff inside the box and not open the hood? Please. Don't you ever ask "why" or did you go to school where that wasn't allowed?

That "one" result that is in question is not far from the other result that is not being questioned. The M3 did 4.4 and ISF did 4.2. M3 is 3650 or 3675lbs and the ISF is 3800lbs. The difference is ISF has 50 or 60 more lbs of torque. The 150lbs is not much of an advantage and should equalized the two with the ISF's torque advantage. Hence, those numbers are not so controversial since they are so close. I have no problem of asking "why", my problem is the foregone conclusion that is the ISF is under rating their HP base on the results and Swamp's calculation.

And you absolutely continue and continue to NOT READ NOR UNDERSTAND MY POSTS. YOU HAVE TO DIG DEEPER THAN HP, WEIGHT AND 0-60. UGHHHH. READ - PLEASE! It is right in bold- you quoted it but you don't bloody understand it!

Quote:

The torque delivered to the wheels divided by the weight is an absolutely essential factor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbb357

So again, why does it not add up and why in the hell should everything add up to your calculations? I think your being just a little too technical about this whole thing. But that's fine, to each his own. We are obviously not going to agree on this. You are pretty much convinced with your "similuted test results" and that's the end of it all.

You obviously did not take to heart my post about the updated transmission modeling and the fact that the C&D results are still not very physically possible given the specs of the car. Everything should add up simply because this it the real world, described by physics. Again, I'd point out the Civic example but you JUST DON'T GET IT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbb357

LOL!!! Oh my God! That's a good one, what's your next conspiracy theory, i know, they used NOS. You are sooooooo reaching. But if that makes you happy, so be it. Just so you know, the dyno results on this thread is by Automobilemag.

Other members have already addresses this (thanks guys). It is absolutely not conspiracy theory. It has been done before and it'll be done again. Some very big BMW fans have even suggested early E46 M3 were guilty of this.

OK. I am really done now. Keep on posting. You are so stubborn and arrogant and unwilling to read and learn I just can't keep trying to help you. You have really missed the ENTIRE POINT. Enjoy your isolated ignorant little world. And "ignorant" is not an insult, and does not mean stupid.

Please tell me that you are kidding. It has happened in the past where a manufacturer(s) sent a beefed up version of their production car(s) to auto rag reviewers for testing. It isn't something that can necessarily be ruled out in totality.

As far as C&D's times (..and how they produce them), they have come into question in the past.

I'm sure it has, but the fact that Swamp is using that as one of his theory makes me laugh. But that's fine with me, we'll go with that. Obviously you agree with him and believed him as well. Lexus brought a sleeper to C&D.

Easy Swamp, easy. Don't have a heart attack there tough guy. You're starting to bold letters and super sizing them, that can't be a good sign. Let's end this and just say we agree to disagree. That is all. You have your valid points and i have mine as well.

I'm sure it has, but the fact that Swamp is using that as one of his theory makes me laugh. But that's fine with me, we'll go with that. Obviously you agree with him and believed him as well. Lexus brought a sleeper to C&D.

You're missing the point (....which seems to be fairly consistent behavior on your part)!

He used the "sleeper" theory as a last-ditch possibility given that one (..or all) of the more reasonable variables were deemed to be accurate.

Easy Swamp, easy. Don't have a heart attack there tough guy. You're starting to bold letters and super sizing them, that can't be a good sign. Let's end this and just say we agree to disagree. That is all. You have your valid points and i have mine as well.

I am a little confused as to why you seem so adamant against the possibility of the car being underrated? That's usually considered a good thing.

Any comments about my comparison to the E39 M5? After all, the car appears to have much more in common with that car than an either an RS4 or an M3. I.e 3800lbs, 5L V8, ~400hp, ~370ft-lb, RWD, etc.

__________________

A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.

I am a little confused as to why you seem so adamant against the possibility of the car being underrated? That's usually considered a good thing.

Any comments about my comparison to the E39 M5? After all, the car appears to have much more in common with that car than an either an RS4 or an M3. I.e 3800lbs, 5L V8, ~400hp, ~370ft-lb, RWD, etc.

I would'nt be so adamant about it if it did'nt have a dyno test results available along with the performance results from the same car that is very close to C&D's test results. But it does and it's quite clear that it is around the figure that they have published. Actually the RS4 is not that far from it, just a little bit heavier by 100+ lbs and the M3 is just a little lighter buy about 100+ lbs. Which is another reason why i don't think the results that C&D got is too shocking or impossible. I never thought about the comparison with the E39 M5, but they do seem very similar to each others specificatons. In Swamps point of view, realisticly and mathematicaly, those numbers that C&D came up with is too good and almost too good to be true. And i do understand where he's coming from. Physics is physics there is no buts or ifs. It is what it is. But again, there's always going to be some factors that are not going to show in any simulation software that are used. I'm just in favor of real world results more than simulations. The facts are Automobilemag got 333rwhp on the dyno which equates to around 417 crank hp and they where able to get 0-60 of 4.6secs. Clearly it's not 4.2 like C&D, but it is pretty close. Which brings me back to how C&D launch their cars that gives a possiblity that they where able to pull off those numbers without the car being under rated and actually has more power than it is supposed to be making. Which Swamp predicted to be around 470hp. Oh one more thing, under rating the car is not a good thing. That's cheating or lying or whatever you want to call it.

Swamp2, can you explain this one or try to calculate in your software.

I'm just interested on what kind of figures you'll get. I'm not flaming or anything like that, i'm just curious. Because these are very close numbers that the RS4, ISF and even the current M3 are getting. Remember, this is a 3500lbs car with only 333hp. If you can, if you don't want to that's fine as well. Thanks.

[b]I'm just interested on what kind of figures you'll get. I'm not flaming or anything like that, i'm just curious.

OK since you asked, I will humor you. There is no reason not to share the capabilities or validation of a software tool I like and call accurate.

Using the exact figures in your post and making only the following minor changes to the default CarTest parameters: weight - to match the measured curb weight (software includes options and defaults for driver weight and gas weight and they did not match the number you posted for this particular car), shift times - default is .5 s a more realistic figure for a good driver in a MT is .3 s. Conclusions:

-0-60: right on the money or within 3/10th however you like to call it
-0-100: within 7/10th or 1/10th
-1/4mi: within 1/10th to 4/10ths on ET
-1/4mi: trap within 1.5 - 3.5 mph

I think this is very typical of what one car get with CarTest. Do you notice how much closer this is comparing simulation to one actual test than the case we argued about for pages. I suspect that some tests do show better numbers and others worse for the E46 M3. My conclusion from this exercise is that both the reported figures for the car, the inputs to CarTest, the actual test itself and the simulation outputs are "consistent". There is no glaring/obvious problem with any of the pieces of the puzzle.

My C63 AMG results today were just as good!

Enjoy.

P.S. One big reason the E46 M3 is fairly fast given its peak hp/weight ratio (not all that hot) is it's high redline and short gear ratios i.e. torque multiplication, just like the new car (I mean wrt gearing not a moderate hp/weight ratio).